Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure, as the spot was near the house. This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters.

Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure, as the spot was near the house. This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters.

Which brings up the reason I keep posting juicy bigotted and racist quotes by Darwin and his disciples here at UD. While the intellectual community may know them, the general public does not. Suppose the public decided that every time it accepted a “Darwin” (a 10-pound note) in payment or in change for a purchase, it was implicitly endorsing those terrible quotes? People would likely say, “No thanks, I’d rather have two fivers. I don’t take money that praises racists and bigots — and neither should you.”

I have to wonder if Dembski, as an American, refuses to use the $20 bill, but rather says "No thanks, I'd rather have two tens." The twenty features Andrew Jackson, a slaveholder. Granted, Jackson was probably a more benevolent master than most of his peers, but a master he remained. In contrast, the ten features Alexander Hamilton who was an abolitionist before such a thing was considered trendy.

EDIT: Probably not. If our departed friend AFDave is any indication, the right-wingers never forgave Hamilton for that whole national bank thing.

--------------It's natural to be curious about our world, but the scientific method is just one theory about how to best understand it. We live in a democracy, which means we should treat every theory equally. - Steven Colbert, I Am America (and So Can You!)

kick-off a comparison of what good has been brought to the world by these two people — Darwin vs. Wilberforce. Nazi Eugenics vs. the abolition of slavery.

Pardon my french, but for fucks sake. It does show how vacuous Dembski is however.What I dont understand is that recently they were saying how Darwin plagiarized Wallace. So would they now be saying that Wallace caused Nazi Eugenics? NS was obviously an idea whos time had come. If Darwin did not specify it, somebody else would have, no question. So, I get the impression from these UD posts that they are critical of Darwin becuase of his "racism", not becuase of the idea he originated. I get that impression, but I don't believe it for a moment. It's "Darwinism" they hate, not Darwin, and any attempt to say otherwise is misdirection.

I think that Dembski is pissed because Darwin's legacy will endure for thousands more years. And Dembski will just be a footnote in history, if that.

--------------I also mentioned that He'd have to give me a thorough explanation as to *why* I must "eat human babies".FTK

if there are even critical flaws in Gauger’s work, the evo mat narrative cannot standGordon Mullings

Which brings up the reason I keep posting juicy bigotted and racist quotes by Darwin and his disciples here at UD. While the intellectual community may know them, the general public does not. Suppose the public decided that every time it accepted a “Darwin” (a 10-pound note) in payment or in change for a purchase, it was implicitly endorsing those terrible quotes? People would likely say, “No thanks, I’d rather have two fivers. I don’t take money that praises racists and bigots — and neither should you.”

GrrRrrrr! MUST FIGHT STRAW MAN!! So we've given up pretending to do science.

ID: NEW GOALS.

1 YEAR) BADMOUTH DARWIN, LINK HIM TO EVIL

5 YEAR) HOPE THAT JAD WRITES ANOTHER PAPER

10 YEARS) BLUSTER AND PREEN AND AVOID COURT CASES.

AND PRETEND ID IS A WORLD-WIDE MOVEMENT, NOT JUST SOME PAROCHIAL PLOY TO CIRCUMVENT CHURCH/STATE LEGISLATION IN US.

Which brings up the reason I keep posting juicy bigotted and racist quotes by Darwin and his disciples here at UD. While the intellectual community may know them, the general public does not. Suppose the public decided that every time it accepted a “Darwin” (a 10-pound note) in payment or in change for a purchase, it was implicitly endorsing those terrible quotes? People would likely say, “No thanks, I’d rather have two fivers. I don’t take money that praises racists and bigots — and neither should you.”

I have to wonder if Dembski, as an American, refuses to use the $20 bill, but rather says "No thanks, I'd rather have two tens." The twenty features Andrew Jackson, a slaveholder.

Of course not, Dembski would consider that 'political correctness'. Slave owning is nice and scriptural, keep in mind.

Jackson also was responsible for one of America's worse episodes of ethnic cleansing:

Quote

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of Andrew Jackson's presidency was his policy regarding American Indians.[16] Jackson was a leading advocate of a policy known as "Indian Removal," signing the Indian Removal Act into law in 1830. The Act authorized the President to negotiate treaties to purchase tribal lands in the east in exchange for lands further west, outside of existing U.S. state borders.Jackson never publicly advocated removing American Indians by force, but he devoted considerable energies to the negotiation of removal treaties. Nearly seventy Indian treaties—many of them land sales—were ratified during his presidency, the most of any administration.While frequently frowned upon in the North, the Removal Act was popular in the South, where population growth and the discovery of gold on Cherokee land had increased pressure on tribal lands. The state of Georgia became involved in a contentious jurisdictional dispute with the Cherokees, culminating in the 1832 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Worcester v. Georgia) which ruled that Georgia could not impose its laws upon Cherokee tribal lands. Jackson is often quoted (regarding the decision) as having said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" Whether or not he actually said it is disputed.[17]

In any case, Jackson used the Georgia crisis to pressure Cherokee leaders to sign a removal treaty. A small faction of Cherokees led by Chief John Ross negotiated the Treaty of New Echota with Jackson's administration. Ross was not a recognized leader of the Cherokee Nation, and this document was rejected by most Cherokees as illegitimate.[18] Over 15,000 Cherokee signed a petition in protest; it was ignored by the Supreme Court.[19] In 1838, 1,600 Cherokee remained on their lands. The terms of the treaty were then enforced by Jackson's successor, Martin Van Buren, who ordered 7,000 armed troops to remove them.[20] This resulted in the deaths of over 4,000 Cherokee on the "Trail of Tears."

In all, more than 45,000 American Indians were relocated to the West during Jackson's administration. During this time, the administration purchased about 100 million acres (400,000 km²) of Indian land for about $68 million and 32 million acres (130,000 km²) of western land. Jackson was criticized at the time for his role in these events, and the criticism has grown over the years. Remini characterizes the Indian Removal era as "one of the unhappiest chapters in American history."[21]

Also:

Quote

Which brings up the reason I keep posting juicy bigotted and racist quotes by Darwin and his disciples here at UD. While the intellectual community may know them, the general public does not. Suppose the public decided that every time it accepted a “Darwin” (a 10-pound note) in payment or in change for a purchase, it was implicitly endorsing those terrible quotes? People would likely say, “No thanks, I’d rather have two fivers. I don’t take money that praises racists and bigots — and neither should you.”

So much for putting Dave Scot on the new dollar coin.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Calling for Darwin's portrait to be removed from the £10 at its next redesign seems to be a shrewd move for IDers. Or at least as close as they ever come to being shrewd.

After all, there are many, many notable Britons who richly deserve a place on a banknote, and the Bank takes a redesign as an excellent opportunity to give the honour to someone new. Besides which, it makes it easy to identify which series of banknote you're referring to - telling people that the £20 depicting Edward Elgar is about to stop being legal tender (as will be the case in 2009 or 2010) is a lot easier than trying to describe the old security features to look out for.

So, Darwin will disappear from the £10, as Dickens did before him, not because of his morals, or politics, or science, but because Winston Churchill (or Paul Dirac, or Alan Turing, or John Lennon) equally deserves a place.

And what will UD say, when this inevitably comes to pass? Will they claim that this is evidence that "Darwinism" is falling out of popularity in Britain? Will they claim that their "grass roots" movement had anything to do with this change? In short, will they lie through their teeth about its significance?

DaveScot said... Ah, the old passwords don't match trick. As Maxwell Smart would say, "That's the oldest trick in the book".

They actually censor what they don't like at ATBC but they won't admit it. A few months ago we were trying to start a rumor that Judge Jones actually does have a flatulence problem and I had a guy from UC Berkeley try to post an anonymous comment saying he was a witness at the trial and the fumes near the bench made his eyes water. I made sure the comment was posted from the UC Berkeley campus computer for authenticity so there was a hint of it being Kevin Padian (who called me "Dembski's Cerberus" in an email thread including Barbara Forrest and Richard Dawkins which tickled me pink given that Marines were nicknamed Teufelshunde, translated is "Devil Dogs", by the Germans in WWI) making the comment. The moderator at ATBC, Steve Story, would be able to see that the anonymous source was at Berkeley. Thrice the comment was posted under the name "RealFartSmeller" and thrice it was quickly removed. Granted we were being mischievous but it sure proved that they don't practice what they preach about non-censorship. Is it okay if I call that lying drunkard Steve Story a lying drunkard? If not then I won't say it. I can't confirm or deny that Judge Jones really has a flatulence problem but it does make you wonder if there's any real life inspiration for the infamous sound effects...

DaveScot said... Ah, the old passwords don't match trick. As Maxwell Smart would say, "That's the oldest trick in the book".

They actually censor what they don't like at ATBC but they won't admit it. A few months ago we were trying to start a rumor that Judge Jones actually does have a flatulence problem and I had a guy from UC Berkeley try to post an anonymous comment saying he was a witness at the trial and the fumes near the bench made his eyes water. I made sure the comment was posted from the UC Berkeley campus computer for authenticity so there was a hint of it being Kevin Padian (who called me "Dembski's Cerberus" in an email thread including Barbara Forrest and Richard Dawkins which tickled me pink given that Marines were nicknamed Teufelshunde, translated is "Devil Dogs", by the Germans in WWI) making the comment. The moderator at ATBC, Steve Story, would be able to see that the anonymous source was at Berkeley. Thrice the comment was posted under the name "RealFartSmeller" and thrice it was quickly removed. Granted we were being mischievous but it sure proved that they don't practice what they preach about non-censorship. Is it okay if I call that lying drunkard Steve Story a lying drunkard? If not then I won't say it. I can't confirm or deny that Judge Jones really has a flatulence problem but it does make you wonder if there's any real life inspiration for the infamous sound effects...

11:03 AM

Apparently we do practice what we preach. We preach that Davetard's comments are deleted, and in practice, we delete them, whether or not they're rerouted through Berkeley.

And I get an extra 10 points for being drunk at the time. Degree of difficulty and all that.

Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure, as the spot was near the house. This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters.

Less than two years ago, Dembski had some nasty things to say, too. Does it lay heavily on his conscience, considering what we now know about a lot of that "looting?"

Even Darwin didn't say, "Just shoot the starving 'unwashed masses,'" which is Dembski's favorite phrase for - what are they called - oh yeah, people. (He includes himself in that phrase, he says. Right, I guess that means he waited tables and napped on the floor of the women's restroom to put himself through college, too. No one discusses the issue of class in America.)

I'm just pointing that out.

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive

DaveScot said... Ah, the old passwords don't match trick. As Maxwell Smart would say, "That's the oldest trick in the book".

They actually censor what they don't like at ATBC but they won't admit it. A few months ago we were trying to start a rumor that Judge Jones actually does have a flatulence problem and I had a guy from UC Berkeley try to post an anonymous comment saying he was a witness at the trial and the fumes near the bench made his eyes water. I made sure the comment was posted from the UC Berkeley campus computer for authenticity so there was a hint of it being Kevin Padian (who called me "Dembski's Cerberus" in an email thread including Barbara Forrest and Richard Dawkins which tickled me pink given that Marines were nicknamed Teufelshunde, translated is "Devil Dogs", by the Germans in WWI) making the comment. The moderator at ATBC, Steve Story, would be able to see that the anonymous source was at Berkeley. Thrice the comment was posted under the name "RealFartSmeller" and thrice it was quickly removed. Granted we were being mischievous but it sure proved that they don't practice what they preach about non-censorship. Is it okay if I call that lying drunkard Steve Story a lying drunkard? If not then I won't say it. I can't confirm or deny that Judge Jones really has a flatulence problem but it does make you wonder if there's any real life inspiration for the infamous sound effects...

11:03 AM

DaveTard, wait.

You -- the man who bans anyone at UD who shows the slightest tendency to say anything against ID -- you are crying censorship at ATBC because a stupid fart joke of yours got deleted?

If that's the best you've got, give it up, you pathetic old fat fuck.

Quote

I can't confirm or deny that Judge Jones really has a flatulence problem

Tho I can certainly confirm that the greatest minds of ID are obsessed with farts.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Once as a very little boy whilst at the day school, or before that time, I acted cruelly, for I beat a puppy, I believe, simply from enjoying the sense of power; but the beating could not have been severe, for the puppy did not howl, of which I feel sure, as the spot was near the house. This act lay heavily on my conscience, as is shown by my remembering the exact spot where the crime was committed. It probably lay all the heavier from my love of dogs being then, and for a long time afterwards, a passion. Dogs seemed to know this, for I was an adept in robbing their love from their masters.

Less than two years ago, Dembski had some nasty things to say, too. Does it lay heavily on his conscience, considering what we now know about a lot of that "looting?"

Even Darwin didn't say, "Just shoot the starving 'unwashed masses,'" which is Dembski's favorite phrase for - what are they called - oh yeah, people. (He includes himself in that phrase, he says. Right, I guess that means he waited tables and napped on the floor of the women's restroom to put himself through college, too. No one discusses the issue of class in America.)

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

That's hilarious, given how DT squealed and whined like a little piggy when insulted at Alan's blog and at UDoJ. I love the tough guy Marine act coming from a tubby yellow-bellied (or maybe those are just cheezy-poof crumb-stains?) REMF who speedily bans anyone who exposes his considerable inadequacies over at UD. I suppose being a hypocrite is small beans when you're already a known cretin, bigot, coward and all-round uneducated moron.

Quoting the tardy one:

Quote

If I weren't banned at Pharyngula, Dispatches, Panda's Thumb, ATBC, I'd get down in the mud with them. I was sergeant in the USMC and Marines aren't exactly famous for being delicate and refined. The fact of the matter is they can dish it out but they can't take it and if any of them don't believe that then I challenge them to unban me at those sites. Even though I'm vastly outnumbered they still can't deal with me. On blogs I try to follow the rule "When in Rome do as the Romans do." Larry Moran's evolution blog is the only one where I'm still tolerated. Moran has a thick skin and for that he has my respect. Red State Rabble is a real joke. Witless, classless wimp Pat Hayes doesn't even enable comments. If not cowardice I'm not sure why since he doesn't have any semblance of refinement to guard.

That is funny....

I've known many Marines in my day - most were just regular guys - not braggarts and wnnabes that spend the remainder of their lives yammering on about how tough they used to be. Of course, there was that Force Recon Platoon that stayed in my barracks in 1986 - we had to throw out the mattresses from the room they stayed in because they got drunk and peed on each other...

Anyway, while my blog is low-traffic and not very active (I only occasionally update it), Springhole left one comment there once, I replied, and he never came back. He is not banned there, either.

--------------"Rich is just mad because he thought all titties had fur on them until last week when a shorn transvestite ruined his childhood dreams by jumping out of a spider man cake and man boobing him in the face lips." - Erasmus

Finally, after years of bloviation from the ID and creo camps that evils such as eugenics inevitably flow from a belief in natural selection, we have expert opinion that they simply do not. From Uncommonly Denyse:

Quote

I wrote about this in By Design or by Chance?:

Darwin’s theory of natural selection does not provide a basis for the Social Darwinists’ eugenic beliefs. Natural selection does not suggest any specific direction for evolution.

I'm not accustomed to her getting things right, but here she has.

--------------Myth: Something that never was true, and always will be.

"The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you."- David Foster Wallace

"Hereâ€™s a clue. Snarky banalities are not a substitute for saying something intelligent. Write that down."- Barry Arrington

If intelligence was purely genetic and materialistic, the trend would be for humanity to get stupider as time goes on.

Anyone care to provide the punchline? Or just too easy?

Bob

Yeah, I saw that (and thought of the punchline). But that's an interesting statement... I really don't see why anyone would assume greater stupidity.

Is this part of that "it's all going to blow up/fall apart/disintegrate/and mean nothing so hopefully Jesus will come back soon" motif? Are there some men over there reaching the age at which they realize that the prostate is not intelligently designed? Well, tell me about it. I'm getting older, too.

(*foreshadowing*)

The key is black humor. The surrealists believed in it. It was their way of uniting Comedy and Tragedy (which one of my old theatre pro-fuss-or insisted could not be done).

--------------Which came first: the shimmy, or the hip?

AtBC Poet Laureate

"I happen to think that this prerequisite criterion of empirical evidence is itself not empirical." - Clive